highly impactful on perception. Alexandra Frazer and Michelle Miller noted in their article Double Standards in Sentence Structure: Passive Voice in Narratives Describing Domestic Violence,
Structuring sentences in a way that emphasizes women’s causal role in such violence, while deemphasizing men’s role, may be one of several mechanisms by which writers and speakers express their attitudes about gender, sex, and power. These mechanisms include the use of erotic rather than violent terminology in rape trials (Bavelas & Coates, 2001), passive-voice use in rape descriptions (Bohner, 2001; Henley et al., 1995), and victim-blaming language in descriptions of rape (Kanekar, Kolsawalla, & D’Souza, 1981). Such expressions may in turn shape whether readers and listeners interpret these acts as voluntary acts of violence against an undeserving victim or as unfortunate experiences that women—at least in part—bring on themselves. (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.70)
Studies show that writers typically prefer the passive voice over active voice twice as often to describe male-on-female violence, and also choose passive voice specially for sexual violence rather than for for violent acts in general (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.63). Two possible explanations for this phenomenon are that writers and speakers may be subconsciously choosing verb voice to play down men’s responsibility for violence against women (Penelope, 1990), or that writers and speakers tend to use the passive voice as a way to psychologically distance and shield themselves from the highly-disturbing sexually-violent actions that they are trying to convey (Bohner 2001) (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.64). Additionally, the participants who were overall more accepting of common rape myths, such as myths that husbands cannot rape their wives or that those who are provocatively dressed are “asking for it”, more frequently used passive voice to describe a rape shown to them in a film excerpt (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.64). Overall, passive verb choices result in a form of linguistic avoidance that minimizes both the violence and the perpetrator. Language of the Criminal Justice System A police interview is a strenuous process and all-around intimidating ordeal for those who have suffered instances of sexual violence. Many choose not to report these crimes because of the common and unjust treatment they may receive throughout the various levels of the judicial system. There are two main conversational practices utilized by police which imply disbelief and disapproval of the both the complainant’s account of the incident and their own behavior. The first conversational tactic is implying a problem with the complainant’s account such as problems with physical logistics. The second conversational tactic is inquisition that reduces the complainant’s conduct during the incident to questionable. According to ABE recommendations for interviewing in the U.K., Witnesses should only be challenged directly over an inconsistency in exceptional circumstances and even then only when it is essential to do so. Rather, such inconsistencies should be presented in the context of puzzlement by the interviewer and the need to be quite clear what the witness has said. On no account should the interviewer voice their suspicions to the witness or label a witness as a liar: there may be a perfectly innocuous explanation for any inconsistency. (Antaki, Richardson, Stokoe, & Willott, 2015, p.331) While this type of guideline is designed in an attempt to prevent the interviewer from sounding unnecessarily accusatory or suspicious, recommendations such as the aforementioned are not always followed as it does not provide a specific script for the interviewer. There is a significant amount of room left for expression of personal biases and perpetuation of common rape myths through the use of pejorative language, labeling, and passive syntax. ‘Why’ questions have a …show more content…
Additionally, “attempted, unsuccessfully to penetrate her” is also accurate to the situation as it does not use language of consensual sex (Schanfran, 2013, p.26). “Instructed her to perform oral sex” is a poor choice of words, as it sanitizes the level of violence involved, and also wrongly uses language of consensual sex to describe an assaultive acts (Schanfran, 2013, p.26). Just like the previous statement, the phrasing “so he could have sex with her” also inappropriately uses the language of consensual sex to describe an assaultive act (Schanfran, 2013, p.26). In another case example from the National Judicial Education Program about sexual
Structuring sentences in a way that emphasizes women’s causal role in such violence, while deemphasizing men’s role, may be one of several mechanisms by which writers and speakers express their attitudes about gender, sex, and power. These mechanisms include the use of erotic rather than violent terminology in rape trials (Bavelas & Coates, 2001), passive-voice use in rape descriptions (Bohner, 2001; Henley et al., 1995), and victim-blaming language in descriptions of rape (Kanekar, Kolsawalla, & D’Souza, 1981). Such expressions may in turn shape whether readers and listeners interpret these acts as voluntary acts of violence against an undeserving victim or as unfortunate experiences that women—at least in part—bring on themselves. (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.70)
Studies show that writers typically prefer the passive voice over active voice twice as often to describe male-on-female violence, and also choose passive voice specially for sexual violence rather than for for violent acts in general (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.63). Two possible explanations for this phenomenon are that writers and speakers may be subconsciously choosing verb voice to play down men’s responsibility for violence against women (Penelope, 1990), or that writers and speakers tend to use the passive voice as a way to psychologically distance and shield themselves from the highly-disturbing sexually-violent actions that they are trying to convey (Bohner 2001) (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.64). Additionally, the participants who were overall more accepting of common rape myths, such as myths that husbands cannot rape their wives or that those who are provocatively dressed are “asking for it”, more frequently used passive voice to describe a rape shown to them in a film excerpt (Frazer & Miller, 2008, p.64). Overall, passive verb choices result in a form of linguistic avoidance that minimizes both the violence and the perpetrator. Language of the Criminal Justice System A police interview is a strenuous process and all-around intimidating ordeal for those who have suffered instances of sexual violence. Many choose not to report these crimes because of the common and unjust treatment they may receive throughout the various levels of the judicial system. There are two main conversational practices utilized by police which imply disbelief and disapproval of the both the complainant’s account of the incident and their own behavior. The first conversational tactic is implying a problem with the complainant’s account such as problems with physical logistics. The second conversational tactic is inquisition that reduces the complainant’s conduct during the incident to questionable. According to ABE recommendations for interviewing in the U.K., Witnesses should only be challenged directly over an inconsistency in exceptional circumstances and even then only when it is essential to do so. Rather, such inconsistencies should be presented in the context of puzzlement by the interviewer and the need to be quite clear what the witness has said. On no account should the interviewer voice their suspicions to the witness or label a witness as a liar: there may be a perfectly innocuous explanation for any inconsistency. (Antaki, Richardson, Stokoe, & Willott, 2015, p.331) While this type of guideline is designed in an attempt to prevent the interviewer from sounding unnecessarily accusatory or suspicious, recommendations such as the aforementioned are not always followed as it does not provide a specific script for the interviewer. There is a significant amount of room left for expression of personal biases and perpetuation of common rape myths through the use of pejorative language, labeling, and passive syntax. ‘Why’ questions have a …show more content…
Additionally, “attempted, unsuccessfully to penetrate her” is also accurate to the situation as it does not use language of consensual sex (Schanfran, 2013, p.26). “Instructed her to perform oral sex” is a poor choice of words, as it sanitizes the level of violence involved, and also wrongly uses language of consensual sex to describe an assaultive acts (Schanfran, 2013, p.26). Just like the previous statement, the phrasing “so he could have sex with her” also inappropriately uses the language of consensual sex to describe an assaultive act (Schanfran, 2013, p.26). In another case example from the National Judicial Education Program about sexual